IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

On Tuesday night, it emerged during a Senate estimates hearing that the Attorney-General was briefed on June 9 about the hundreds of dubious or distasteful text messages sent by Slipper to his staffer James Ashby.

Four days later, on June 13, Roxon instructed the Solicitor-General to seek to have Ashby's case struck out. She also gave instructions to seek a waiver for the government to be allowed to use the texts to have Ashby sacked.

The shadow attorney-general, Senator George Brandis, told me yesterday: ''These texts, on any view, contain dozens of instances of predatory sexual conduct. So the Attorney-General's claim that this was merely a vexatious case was extraordinary. Any person who read the texts would know instantly that Ashby had a case.

Later she was to say that she would not comment on the Slipper case because it was before the courts.

Very smelly.

Uum, looks like Justice Rares does not agree with you George Brandis.
He looked at all of the evidence and all he found was a probable conspiracy by Ashby, Brough, Pyne, et al to bring down Slippery Pete.
I agree with you Alfie, very smelly indeed.
I think an inquiry into this conspiracy is well warranted.

Uum, looks like Justice Rares does not agree with you George Brandis.
He looked at all of the evidence and all he found was a probable conspiracy by Ashby, Brough, Pyne, et al to bring down Slippery Pete.
I agree with you Alfie, very smelly indeed.
I think an inquiry into this conspiracy is well warranted.

By releasing all the text messages, he wasn't trying to substantiate claims he was harassed. He made sure they did maximum personal damage to slipper. He can't have it both ways, and maintain his own integrity. If Slipper is guilty of sexual harassment, then keep yourself honest and focus on that. The general smearing and denigration of Slipper as a person (and he is not the kind of person I would have as a friend), just undermines his own integrity.

The evidence of conspiracy and cover up is all there. These people were abusing a judicial system to entrap someone for political gain. It would be a big story except that the Murdoch cheer squad is equally as corrupt and will help Tony even more. All their star investigative reporters will chase down a twenty year old story that will prove nothing more than that Gillard had a poor choice of boyfriend once.

Quote:

First up, let's remind ourselves what Rares said about the quality of Ashby's grief at the hands of Peter Slipper, MP:
''There was no hint in contemporaneous texts with his friends, of Mr Ashby feeling upset as a result of sexual harassment. Rather, those texts suggested that he was planning to use the record of his texts with Mr Slipper to empower others in a way that would affect the balance of power in the House of Representatives.''
The evidence shows that Ashby had no trouble putting Slipper in his place when the former speaker complained that his adviser was helping political enemies in Queensland's Liberal National Party.
Yet, strangely, he made no complaint to Slipper about ''the relatively minor incidents'' of sexual harassment that he took to court.
Ashby was in no doubt about the purpose of his mission. In bringing his case he was recorded as saying that he was making ''national decisions'' and ''saving the nation''.
He and his colleague in the speaker's office, Karen Doane, had been ''chosen to take this journey'' together. They were our saviours, while at the same time they were trying to save their own backsides by buttering up the Queensland LNP member Mal Brough, who is seeking a return to Parliament via the seat held by Slipper.
They were hoping Brough could slide them into cosy sinecures in the Campbell Newman government or with LNP bigwigs like Clive Palmer.
Part of the quid pro quo was that they supplied to Brough copies of Slipper's diaries. Copies also went to the News Ltd reporter Steve (''I'm here to help'') Lewis, who was the front man for the get-Slipper agenda.
No one has extracted a proper answer to the question why Brough was purloining his political opponent's diaries.

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

This is bigger than the Gillard/AWU imbroglio.
I don't expect the Murdoch press to run with this, they are out to get Labor by hook or crook.
But the Fairfax press should be running with this.
Why not?

This is bigger than the Gillard/AWU imbroglio.
I don't expect the Murdoch press to run with this, they are out to get Labor by hook or crook.
But the Fairfax press should be running with this.
Why not?

The article was in the Fairfax thread. It's amazing that as soon as the Murdoch press has a break for Chrissy, Labor's vote shoots up. Without the incessant cheer leading and backing of the might of the Murdoch press across the country, Abbott would currently be polling about 0%. For all his so called toughness and leadership, he is weak and totally dependent on others to do the heavy lifting for him.

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

This is bigger than the Gillard/AWU imbroglio.
I don't expect the Murdoch press to run with this, they are out to get Labor by hook or crook.
But the Fairfax press should be running with this.
Why not?

Two possible reasons I can think of :
1/. There is nothing od substance there.
2/. Too much scrutiny will simply expose the Labor side as either complicit, just as guilty, or draw attention to their own failings and/or hypocrisy.

I am not asserting anything here btw, just speculating on the "why not?" question.

Two possible reasons I can think of :
1/. There is nothing od substance there.

No. Just the findings of a federal Court judge, as opposed to the muckracking over 20 year old rumour an innuendo in the AWU "scandal"

__________________"You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something"

"In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

Then we go back to the question as to "why not?"
If there was anything of substance in these odd allegations there would be journalists fighting tooth and nail to expose them; this is not the case, why not?

btw, I understand the judge commented on Ashby and his case, not anything else. Perhaps you could show otherwise?

Then we go back to the question as to "why not?"
If there was anything of substance in these odd allegations there would be journalists fighting tooth and nail to expose them; this is not the case, why not?

There's no equivalent activist media with the resources that Rupert Murdoch and The Australian that committed themselves to "destroying" one side of politics.

Do you know that The Australian circulates at a LOSS because it's value to Murdoch isn't the money it makes but the power it affords him in setting the political agenda.

Then the rest of News Ltd stable make up 70% of the daily newspaper circulation, they just reprint what the Australian "uncovers", then its broadcast 24/7 on Sky News

No other media have that luxury, nor that kind of a pathological personality driving the company, to simply waste money on whimsy like that.

THAT'S the difference between why the absolute nothing of a story of the AWU got such a spectacular airing while this real example of political corruption and intrigue has been essentially buried.

__________________"You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something"

"In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

I can't see any reason at all in there as to why a journalist anywhere would not run with the story.

Your reasons are nonsense. If there was anything in the story it would be chased down without mercy.

Your understanding of the Australian media landscape is nonsense. Your whole schtick is nonsense. You not seeing something is not an argument, it just means you can't see.

__________________"You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something"

"In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

If you can show why there is a story and why any journalist anywhere would not run with it you might have a case. As it stands, all we have is your speculation (and mine for that matter); there are zero facts to support your assertions.

Journalists of any ilk would be tearing themselves to pieces if there was a story here of any substance. You know it, I know it and they know it.

With the Murdoch press solidly behind Abbott, it won't take too much time.

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes